Entitlements nearly 70% of government spending...

[Kyle]

Republicans warm to Social Security, Medicare reform as 2024 election nears


Entitlement programs account for roughly 70% of government spending


Lawmakers have long shied away from serious discussions about entitlement reform, but the issue appears to be coming back into focus for Republicans who are wary about the growing national debt.

"I definitely have noticed it," veteran GOP strategist Doug Heye told Fox News Digital of the uptick in GOP-led discussions on the issue. "Republicans have talked about this for a long time, not always with specifics. But what tends to happen is, they talk about it, they get attacked, they fall back."

Congress just ended the fiscal year 2024 government-funding fight with President Biden signing a $1.2 trillion spending package into law last week and averting a partial government shutdown. But the ugly battle, which took six additional months after the end of fiscal year 2023, only accounted for the government’s discretionary spending – which makes up just over a quarter of annual federal funds.

Republicans warm to Social Security, Medicare reform as 2024 election nears

House Republicans are cautiously getting more vocal about the need for entitlement reform, though experts say the odds of actual change are a long shot.

www.foxnews.com

 

[SamSpade]

I don't know how they will ever handle this - but sooner or later, they have to consider the idea that a mandated retirement account is better than just throwing money in a pile and handing it out regardless of how much is needed.

We all know from our experience with 401ks and other forms of retirement funds, that EVERYTHING performs better than SS. That if every dollar you ever gave to SS had been invested in a retirement account, you would retire MUCH RICHER than SS alone.

Those opposed to such are wary of the fact that - sometimes - retirement accounts sometimes LOSE money. They want - 100% guarantee. Well la-dee-dah - we are NOW in a situation where INSISTING on guarantees means, the whole goddamned thing goes broke. So much for NOT losing money.

That's Social Security for ya. At least now government agencies are taking more out of new employees paychecks to cover retirement.

THEN - there's Medicare. There's so much waste in the medical profession, but a lot of it is tied up in ridiculous legislation that is INTENDED to protect us, but by and large just profits pharma, lawyers, hospitals and so on. We spend twice as much per person on health care in this country as other developed nations and by and large, the health care is worse except for specialized care. THAT absolultely says - wasted money. How on Earth is it the case that your doctor's office has one or two doctors - and DOZENS of staff - to run a practice? Your doctor sees you for fifteen minutes and you spend an hour and a half PLUS there, at the office.

 

[OccamsRazor]

I don't know how they will ever handle this - but sooner or later, they have to consider the idea that a mandated retirement account is better than just throwing money in a pile and handing it out regardless of how much is needed.

We all know from our experience with 401ks and other forms of retirement funds, that EVERYTHING performs better than SS. That if every dollar you ever gave to SS had been invested in a retirement account, you would retire MUCH RICHER than SS alone.

I always wonder if the SS numbers that get thrown around every year are the total dollars being "spent" in the program OR is it the amount being spent AFTER deducting the money put INTO the pot?

 

[SamSpade]

I always wonder if the SS numbers that get thrown around every year are the total dollars being "spent" in the program OR is it the amount being spent AFTER deducting the money put INTO the pot?

I don't follow you. Every year, the "pot" is empty and money gets thrown in. In years past, there was money "left over" - so they spent it anyway, on other things.

 

[OccamsRazor]

I don't follow you. Every year, the "pot" is empty and money gets thrown in. In years past, there was money "left over" - so they spent it anyway, on other things.

Meaning every year, the Gov shells out X amount of dollars to Social security recipients AND every year, the Gov receives Y amount of dollars in Social Security payments from workers. Is the reported amounts just X or is it X-Y?

 

[SamSpade]

Meaning every year, the Gov shells out X amount of dollars to Social security recipients AND every year, the Gov receives Y amount of dollars in Social Security payments from workers. Is the reported amounts just X or is it X-Y?

Not sure but I am thinking that by now, X-Y is a positive number.

 

[GURPS]

Republicans warm to Social Security, Medicare reform as 2024 election nears

Bill Whittle did a video back in 2011 about the budget and how much money is borrow every year and how entitlements grow every year AUTOMATICALLY because Congress was too scared to have a budget debate every year over entitlements

 

[TPD]

Eventually something has to be done with these government entitlements- sooner than later imo

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't really consider SS & Med an "entitlement" because that's our money that we and our employers contributed. If they want to pare entitlements, go after the people who never worked or contributed anything, yet still get a check every month.

But if they want to give me my money as a lump sum, I'm totally okay with that. What I'm not okay with is them going, "Sorry, Charlie, no SS retirement money for you so GFY." Especially when they're sending billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries to fund their "wars" and other bullshit. Also when they're hemorrhaging money at illegal aliens.

 

[vraiblonde]

Eventually something has to be done with these government entitlements- sooner than later imo

See, and if they weren't spending our tax dollars on foreigners and foreign countries, there'd be plenty for SS & Med.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

If I had a choice from the start to pay in just half and not get anything I would have. I know I could have done better with that half I didn't pay in than I would get with what they will give me back.

SS Pay is actually pretty good, my mom gets about $1700/month minus Medicare off what my dad paid in, she started collecting at 60. Honestly that is far more than I expected her to get when my dad passed away.

 

[Merlin99]

Republicans warm to Social Security, Medicare reform as 2024 election nears


Entitlement programs account for roughly 70% of government spending


Lawmakers have long shied away from serious discussions about entitlement reform, but the issue appears to be coming back into focus for Republicans who are wary about the growing national debt.

"I definitely have noticed it," veteran GOP strategist Doug Heye told Fox News Digital of the uptick in GOP-led discussions on the issue. "Republicans have talked about this for a long time, not always with specifics. But what tends to happen is, they talk about it, they get attacked, they fall back."

Congress just ended the fiscal year 2024 government-funding fight with President Biden signing a $1.2 trillion spending package into law last week and averting a partial government shutdown. But the ugly battle, which took six additional months after the end of fiscal year 2023, only accounted for the government’s discretionary spending – which makes up just over a quarter of annual federal funds.

Republicans warm to Social Security, Medicare reform as 2024 election nears

House Republicans are cautiously getting more vocal about the need for entitlement reform, though experts say the odds of actual change are a long shot.

www.foxnews.com

It’s something that needs to be done, but now is a really bad time in the election cycle to bring this up.

 

[jrt_ms1995]

It’s something that needs to be done, but now is a really bad time in the election cycle to bring this up.

That's why it was done.

 

[SamSpade]

See, and if they weren't spending our tax dollars on foreigners and foreign countries, there'd be plenty for SS & Med.

Probably not. We spend just under 3 trillion for Medicare and Social Security and around 50 billion in foreign aid, and that includes all of the aid - military, humanitarian, all of it. It's around 55 to 60 times larger.

Cut off the zeros, and it's comparing 3000 to fifty bucks. 50 billion is a lot, but Medicare/Social Security is not JUST most of the budget, it's increasing. There are ways to make it more solvent, but they almost all involve finding ways to cut payments, raise taxes or raise the ceiling on taxation. One way is to find ways to lower medical costs, in general.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't really consider SS & Med an "entitlement" because that's our money that we and our employers contributed. If they want to pare entitlements, go after the people who never worked or contributed anything, yet still get a check every month.

That would include people like my son, who will need payments to stay alive after I am dead. He is unable to work in the same capacity as you and me. Without someone to wake him up, keep at him and remind him what to do next, he can't work like we do. That's true of most of the special needs persons we both know.

Entitlements are named so, because you get them by virtue of qualifying for them. It has little to do with the way we use the word in other contexts. You do pay into it, but unless you have paid into it all of your life at the cap, the vast majority of Social Security recipients will receive more than they ever put in. (There's charts from Statistica). This is because it isn't financed by your contributions, but by the contributions of current and future workers. For example, what you contributed in the 80's and 90's and 00's is less than you will be PAID in the 2030's - and close to what you were paid in total for two of those decades.

Now - what's SAD - is if your money was INVESTED in the 80s, 90s and beyond - if you didn't pay SS but put the same money in investments - you'd have a LOT MORE MONEY and it wouldn't cost a current worker one plugged nickel - and it wouldn't be a drain on the federal budget.

 

[HemiHauler]

I don't know how they will ever handle this - but sooner or later, they have to consider the idea that a mandated retirement account is better than just throwing money in a pile and handing it out regardless of how much is needed.

The problem with mandated retirement accounts instead of socialist insecurity is that there would be severe restrictions on how one can invest, i.e., how much risk one can assume, how much of a speculative component can be included, etc. such that it likely wouldn’t be much more performant than what the government can furnish.

I remember it being suggested in the 80s that it won’t be available when I reach retirement, and I’ve planned accordingly. I now understand that it won’t disappear completely, but rather many will be means tested out.

OK with me. Not interested in relying on government for any component of my retirement income. My retirement income is and will continue to be substantially more than my working income was.

 

[OccamsRazor]

Not sure but I am thinking that by now, X-Y is a positive number.

But the question is, do they report on X alone? Or, are they reporting the X-Y positive number?? I am thinking the latter would be much, much lower.

 

[OccamsRazor]

The problem with mandated retirement accounts instead of socialist insecurity is that there would be severe restrictions on how one can invest, i.e., how much risk one can assume, how much of a speculative component can be included, etc. such that it likely wouldn’t be much more performant than what the government can furnish.

I remember it being suggested in the 80s that it won’t be available when I reach retirement, and I’ve planned accordingly. I now understand that it won’t disappear completely, but rather many will be means tested out.

OK with me. Not interested in relying on government for any component of my retirement income. My retirement income is and will continue to be substantially more than my working income was.

The problem isn't having to rely on Uncle Sugar for retirement. The problem is that we are FORCED to pay into a faltering system.

 

[HemiHauler]

But the question is, do they report on X alone? Or, are they reporting the X-Y positive number?? I am thinking the latter would be much, much lower.

Trustees Report Summary

A SUMMARY OF THE 2024 ANNUAL REPORTS

www.ssa.gov

 

[HemiHauler]

The problem isn't having to rely on Uncle Sugar for retirement. The problem is that we are FORCED to pay into a faltering system.

I don’t see those as different.